Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39869800›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025

Discourse on measurement.

Arthur Paul Pedersen, David Kellen, Conor Mayo-Wilson, Clintin P Davis-Stober, John C Dunn, M Ali Khan, Maxwell B Stinchcombe, Michael L Kalish, Katya Tentori, Julia Haaf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Scientific Misunderstanding: Notes for the Bedeviled.Computational brain & behavior · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Arthur Paul PedersenDepartment of Computer Science, Remote Sensing Earth Systems Institute, The City University of New York, New York, NY 10031.ORCID 0000-0002-2164-6404
David KellenDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244.
Conor Mayo-WilsonDepartment of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
Clintin P Davis-StoberDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211.ORCID 0000-0002-6836-6979
John C DunnSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
M Ali KhanDepartment of Economics, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21210.ORCID 0000-0003-3852-4400
Maxwell B StinchcombeDepartment of Economics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Michael L KalishDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244.
Katya TentoriCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto, TN 38068, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5968-9936
Julia HaafDepartment of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam 14476, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5122-706X

Funding

A rigorous test of dual process model predictions for problematic alcohol involvementR01AA030914 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI BRUCE D BARTHOLOW, DENIS M MCCARTHY · 2023 to 2026
$2.7M
Department of Education and Training | ARC | Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers (ACEMS) DP150101094Department of Education and Training | ARC | Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers (ACEMS) DP190102160Department of Education and Training | ARC | Centre of Excellence for Integrative Brain Function, Australian Research Council (CIBF) DP130101535HHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01AA030914Johns Hopkins University (JHU) 2022 JHU Provost Discovery Award for Deception and Bad-Faith CommunicationNational Science Foundation (NSF) 2145308NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA030914U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) 81XWH2110173
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measurement literacy is required for strong scientific reasoning, effective experimental design, conceptual and empirical validation of measurement quantities, and the intelligible interpretation of error in theory construction. This discourse examines how issues in measurement are posed and resolved and addresses potential misunderstandings. Examples drawn from across the sciences are used to show that measurement literacy promotes the goals of scientific discourse and provides the necessary foundation for carving out perspectives and carrying out interventions in science.

Indexed as

errormeasurement literacypolicy-makingscientific reasoning

Identifiers

PMID39869800
PMCPMC11804652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.